The bill's text characterizes this as a "corporate welfare tax," and it would apply to corporations with 500 or more employees. If workers are receiving government aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), national school lunch and breakfast programs, Section 8 housing subsidies, or Medicaid, employers will be taxed for the total cost of those benefits.
I think this is a great idea. The predictable consequence will be that Amazon will ask workers "are you receiving any govenrment benefits" and not hire them if they do.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.
If this were true, why publish the op-ed, something that will make such activities much harder in the future? What could a self-proclaimed member of the "quiet resistance within the administration" possibly hope to accomplish by publishing this memo?
And what evidence is there that this is real? All we have is the NYT's word for it, and they have made numerous, serious mistakes in recent years.
In opening remarks on Wednesday, Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, acknowledged that Facebook had been "too slow to act" in 2016 against the Kremlin-backed campaign that was designed to sow discord among American voters. "That's on us," she said, describing Moscow's meddling as "completely unacceptable" and a violation of Facebook's values "and of the country we love."
The US has a long history of meddling in foreign elections. The US also has a long history of broadcasting radio into the East Bloc. And under the First Amendment, Americans have a right to hear the views and speech of foreigners.
How about worrying about the activities of the US government vis-a-vis US citizens? This is what Edward Bernays, the founder of US public relations had to say, about US government propaganda:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country
And the CIA appears to have been manipulating news media in the US since the 1950s as part of Operation Mockingbird:
According to writer Deborah Davis, Operation Mockingbird recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network and oversaw the operations of front groups. CIA support of front groups was exposed after a 1967 Ramparts magazine article reported that the National Student Association received funding from the CIA. In the 1970s, Congressional investigations and reports also revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups. None of these reports, however, mentions an Operation Mockingbird coordinating or supporting these activities.
crypto money supply is controlled too. it can be manipulated. governments have caused huge jumps in bitcoin price..
If you think that any of that amounts to government control of the money supply, you shouldn't attempt to discuss monetary policy or the meaning of fiat currency.
As far as "backed by gold", hahaha, what a farce.the ones I see either have a small fraction of value backed, or the actual store isn't mentioned.... snake oil
It sounds like you are either mixing up fractional reserve banking and gold based cryptocurrencies, or you have evidence of widespread fraud; in the latter case, you should go to the police.
Without the outrage, retweets, and ad impressions Trump generates among the social justice crowd on Twitter, Twitter would go out of business. Making people angry is Twitter's business model. And Trump is a big part of that. So, the reason why Twitter hasn't kicked off Trump yet is simple: money.
That reach and influence can be divisive, though, and as Chrome looks ahead to its next 10 years, the team is mulling its most controversial initiative yet: fundamentally rethinking URLs across the web.
Any changes to the URL system should be arrived at in an open, participatory, voluntary manner, not by a 800 pound gorilla with massive commercial self-interest and a history of censorship throwing around its weight. That is, if there is one team I don't want to design this, it's a Google team.
Furthermore, it's not like users or providers don't have plenty of options to choose from already to simplify URLs.
US imposed speech restrictions were part of the occupation of a totalitarian, genocidal, conquered nation. Of course they were moral as part of such an occupation. And that occupation lasted 40 years, as it should, it was simply a quiet, benign occupation.
It was not justifiable because all you ever do with laws criminalizing free speech is drive the offenders underground.
That was the point in Germany. Actual, genuine Nazis didn't disappear from the face of the earth in 1945, many millions of them remained part of German society for decades to come, working in government, schools, universities, police, and business. Americans wanted the next generations of Germans not to grow up immersed in Nazi propaganda, and that was a good decision.
What Germans should do is now free themselves of this legacy of allied occupation. Instead, they are going the other way, with increasingly authoritarian laws and increasing restrictions on individual liberties.
It's one of the few countries where you can get fined or imprisoned for denying the holocaust, or wearing any nazi insignia in public etc. And the Americans should not take the moral high ground here, because this behavior has its roots in post-war Allied control of West Germany. The occupational forces exercised censorship to control what could and couldn't be said about them... laws that have roots stretching back to the Allied occupation
It was moral, justifiable, and reasonable for Americans to criminalize speech in Germany after WWII as part of the occupation of Germany. It was part of an attempt to transform a nation of fascists and totalitarian mass murderers into something even remotely resembling a democracy.
It is very different for self-governing post-occupation Germany to adopt new anti-speech legislation Therefore: Given Germany's history, for a German to propose criminalizing speech is a sign of profound historical ignorance and irresponsibility.
(In addition, I'm not defending 1930's to 1950's America either; there were strong authoritarian tendencies in the US at the time.)
The reason hate speech laws exist is because rarely if ever do totalitarian movements begin with 'exterminate [the enemy ethnic/religious group]'
Yes, and the Weimar Republic had such laws. Did it help them?
Anti-speech laws were effective and useful as part of America's military occupation of post-WWII Germany, which involved mass surveillance and political interference on German affairs on a massive scale for decades. It is an entirely different matter for a democracy to support such laws as part of a functioning democracy.
However, in the current political climate in Europe and with the historical context, the groups fighting against these laws are all on the hard right side, so politically campaigning for the reversal of the laws is a career suicide for anyone except those on the (far) right. And especially in Germany with them having taken about a million refugees, the removal of said laws now would pour gasoline to the flames of the rising far-right which is salivating at the thought of being able to amp up their rhetoric against both the muslims and the jews and try a re-run of the 30s.
A "re-run of the 30's" is what Germany is headed for because Germany is making the same mistakes now as it did back then: Germany's political elites think they can suppress political unrest and anger through laws and authoritarian measures and controlling the media. It failed back then and it is failing now: trying to restrict speech only energizes extreme voices. And in the day of the Internet, widespread encryption, and international connectivity, such censorship won't even reduce undesirable speech.
So in reality what has been happening within Germany is not 'them proposing to criminalize speech', but rather them trying to implement already existing laws
Plattner isn't proposing to criminalize more hate speech, he is proposing to criminalize "fake new" and propaganda that deviates from government propaganda. Regardless of what you think of the anti-Nazi laws, that is both qualitatively and quantitatively very different.
[Hasso Plattner] saves his greatest condemnation for the scourge of fake news and societal manipulation on large social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Despite the founders of the social giants pledging to do more to ensure public debate is not artificially skewed, Plattner believes the solution will have to come from law enforcement and criminal penalties.
The fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazi regime shows how futile and counterproductive such approaches are. The Weimar Republic had strong laws regulating speech and the press. Far from shutting down the Nazis, the Nazis made a fight against "fake news" part of their own platform ("We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press."). Given Germany's history, for a German to propose criminalizing speech is a sign of profound historical ignorance and irresponsibility.
And let's not kid ourselves why billionaires and political elites in Europe and the US bristle at social networks and blogs: since Edward Bernays, they have used control over the press to “control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it" (his words). In case you don't know, Bernays is responsible for overcoming the resistance of Americans to enter WWI and for addicting American women to tobacco.
And yet you couldn't be bothered (or able) to list a single country where private insurance covered them all.
Well, as I was saying, I'm not advocating "private insurance", I'm advocating a free market; you keep mixing up the two. And in a free market the concept of "universal insurance coverage" makes no sense because people will choose a wide variety of different forms of medical care, including "no care". You're starting from premises and assumptions that apply to you but don't apply to a lot of other people.
Economically, the question isn't whether we can cover more people anyway, but rather when Medicare/Medicaid and the rest of the social safety net are going to collapse; they are completely unsustainable. We're going to get a free market in healthcare one way or another.
(And, since you ask, both Germany and Switzerland have private insurance and universal coverage, but neither have a free market in healthcare.)
Patricia Espinosa, head of the Executive Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which steers the climate talks, said both the public and private sector need to act with urgency to avoid "catastrophic effects"
Sorry, but that's not what the UN's own IPCC report says.
conomists define a currency as something that can be at once a medium of exchange, a store of value and a unit of account. Lack of adoption and loads of volatility mean that cryptocurrencies satisfy none of those criteria.
Don't worry, the way things are going, the dollar and the Euro are going to follow suit. The days of fiat currencies are numbered, and with it the ability of central banks to manipulate the market for the benefit of the rich and powerful.
And while Bitcoin has too many technical problems to replace it, some cryptography-based medium of exchange will replace it.
Incidentally, number of privately insured people probably has gone down; the main reason the number of covered people has gone up is because of massive Medicare/Medicaid expansion. Calling that an increase in the number of "insured" people is deceptive. Furthermore, it's not clear to what degree even those numbers are accurate, since the Obama administration changed the criteria for counting people just as ACA was being implemented, inflating the numbers. And that increased coverage doesn't seem to have done much good either: age adjusted death rates have gone up after ACA implementation, in particular in states with increased coverage. In fact, studies suggest that putting people on Medicare/Medicaid doesn't make them any healthier. That's the crappy, ineffective system you are defending.
Since the market didn't provide them insurance before ACA
The market did provide insurance, but they chose not to buy it. Most of them chose not to buy it because they were young and healthy and had better things to do with their money.
You are counted as being insured if you're covered by, wait for it, "insurance". There is no alternative form of coverage.
Correct: there is no alternative form of coverage because the ACA makes such alternative forms of coverage impossible. That is the problem. That's why we shouldrepeal the ACA, let insurance companies offer whatever plans they want to offer, and let people buy whatever plans they want to buy.
You have bought the anti ACA arguments hook line and sinker.
I didn't "buy" anything, I speak from experience. I have seen the US healthcare system deteriorate before my eyes since the 1970's, and I have lived in several countries that have done better, both with private insurance and with nationalized healthcare. It's you who is ignorant and gullible and supports making the massively corrupt US healthcare system even more corrupt instead of insisting on reasonable cost controls and supporting the adoption of solutions that we know work.
That is just a total revisionist view of history. US healthcare started to diverge from Europe's in the early 1900
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear: US healthcare costsstarted to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's That is, until the late 1970's, the US healthcare system provided excellent care at similar cost to Europe. So your theory that it was the free market that caused health care costs to shoot up so much higher than in Europe is false, because the US certainly did not switch to a free market in the late 1970's.
Single payer does not necessarily mean nationalized health care, nor does it mean no private insurance industry.
Single payer means that there is a single payer, in contrast to the multipayer system we have right now. When Democrats and progressives talk about "single payer" they mean "Medicare for all" or a system like it.
Single payer will work.
Based on what? Your irrational beliefs? People point to the UK and France, but those are single payer systems with nationalized health providers.
I've also stated a fully privatized system won't work, and state that's largely what we have now. Fully privatized does not mean unregulated.
Correct, and that is the problem: we have a fully privatized system and the regulations are used as regulations usually are used: for massive cronyism. That's why we either need a free market system or a system like the UK or France. And you have yet to explain why you don't want a system like the UK or France.
Poverty is a tricky issue. Ask the government of literally any red state except for Texas. Their economies are all garbage and their state's packed full of poverty.
Using correlations between state level political choices and poverty to try to make arguments about causation is utterly silly. Try again.
Oh geez, this is embarrassing for you https://www.factcheck.org/2017... [factcheck.org] . We gained a lot of jobs under him. Maybe you are the type to just make things up.
No, you're simply the type not to understand statistics. Let's take the first number: "The economy gained a net 11.6 million jobs." Sounds good, doesn't it? Except that the US population grew by about 20 million people during Obama's presidency, so this is below what was needed simply to keep the labor participation rate the same.
Yup, it's really looking like you're the type to make shit up. Medicare costs us less than $11,000 per user ( https://www.kff.org/medicare/s... [kff.org] , https://www.healthaffairs.org/... [healthaffairs.org] ) and currently covers about 15% of the population ( https://assets.aarp.org/rgcent... [aarp.org] ). Per American that comes out to 1,600 per person so no it does not cost more per American than any socialized system. In fact, it's not even close.
The Medicare budget is $1055 billion and the Medicaid budget is $579 billion. There are 326 million Americans. When you do the math, you get $5000/American.
Well I don't think being "fully privatized" would get us healthcare coverage for our poorest as we're already pretty privatized and can't do that but we can certainly agree Obama Care isn't great.
You're right: I was imprecise. We have a fully privatized system, albeit a corrupt one. What I meant was that our two realistic alternatives are a fully nationalized system (like the UK and France) or a minimally regulated free market system. And a minimally regulated free market system would lower costs so much that even the poorest Americans could afford it.
Rust makes a bunch of choices (static type safety, static memory safety, reference counting, etc.) that have been made again and again before. They may or may not be slightly better than C, but they are not so much better that it's worth the enormous investment to switch over, retool, and retrain. To put it differently, if people are going to switch out of the C/C++ family, it will have to be to something that's substantially better than Rust.
One of the things that I think is absolutely idiotic in Rust is its lack of a real-time garbage collector, instead relying on a mix of static analysis and reference counting.
Show respect for your elders, we might have learned things over the years.
I just read your bio. You were gifted as a kid, but then seem to have just dropped the ball in your teens. You still have a couple of decades to fulfill your potential; don't waste the time.
You mean proof like "that four digit UID isn't bought"?
I'm An ignorant fuck who is going to keep spouting FUD because that's what I choose to believe. And you are stupid for not believing the same FUD that I fell for
JD, that is an excellent summary of your position.
The AMA is actually in favor of universal healthcare. Like any other unchecked rampant capital enterprise, the AMA was all for no gov interference in health care until their own creation got away from them, and they had a total change of heart as evidenced by AMA's support of universal health care in 2009.
The AMA back then wanted what the AMA wants now: private corporations providing services with government-guaranteed price floors, monopolies, and purchasing mandates. And in Obama, they finally found their crony to give it to them.
I'm actually a classical fiscal conservative and I have no party because of that. I'm certainly not left,
Well, you might also be very far to the right; the left and the right become indistinguishable. After all, the extreme right also wanted nationalized healthcare and kept railing against "unchecked rampant capital enterprise".
And yet you keep wanting to go back to things that have been proven failures.
Really? When did we last have a free market in healthcare? No restrictions on where and how insurers can operate? No tax breaks for health insurance? No limits on the number or location of medical providers? No government prohibitions on medical drugs? We haven't had free market health care in the US for a century.
Furthermore, US healthcare started to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's, just as the effects of the war on poverty and a massive expansion of federal regulations and programs kicked in.
What do we call that when you keep doing the same thing over and over looking for a different result?
You tell me, because it's you who keeps supporting the idea that a regulated system of public insurance and private providers somehow can be made to work. We have such a system already and it performs very poorly, yet you want more of it.
As I was saying: the two realistic choices are (1) nationalized healthcare with a fully government run healthcare system (like the UK and France) or (2) a fully privatized system (like we haven't had in over a century). What you want instead is doubling down on failed corporate cronyism on a massive scale.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is a great idea. The predictable consequence will be that Amazon will ask workers "are you receiving any govenrment benefits" and not hire them if they do.
The op-ed says:
If this were true, why publish the op-ed, something that will make such activities much harder in the future? What could a self-proclaimed member of the "quiet resistance within the administration" possibly hope to accomplish by publishing this memo?
And what evidence is there that this is real? All we have is the NYT's word for it, and they have made numerous, serious mistakes in recent years.
The US has a long history of meddling in foreign elections. The US also has a long history of broadcasting radio into the East Bloc. And under the First Amendment, Americans have a right to hear the views and speech of foreigners.
How about worrying about the activities of the US government vis-a-vis US citizens? This is what Edward Bernays, the founder of US public relations had to say, about US government propaganda:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country
And the CIA appears to have been manipulating news media in the US since the 1950s as part of Operation Mockingbird:
According to writer Deborah Davis, Operation Mockingbird recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network and oversaw the operations of front groups. CIA support of front groups was exposed after a 1967 Ramparts magazine article reported that the National Student Association received funding from the CIA. In the 1970s, Congressional investigations and reports also revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups. None of these reports, however, mentions an Operation Mockingbird coordinating or supporting these activities.
If you think that any of that amounts to government control of the money supply, you shouldn't attempt to discuss monetary policy or the meaning of fiat currency.
It sounds like you are either mixing up fractional reserve banking and gold based cryptocurrencies, or you have evidence of widespread fraud; in the latter case, you should go to the police.
Without the outrage, retweets, and ad impressions Trump generates among the social justice crowd on Twitter, Twitter would go out of business. Making people angry is Twitter's business model. And Trump is a big part of that. So, the reason why Twitter hasn't kicked off Trump yet is simple: money.
Google wants that because it drives more traffic to their search engine.
Any changes to the URL system should be arrived at in an open, participatory, voluntary manner, not by a 800 pound gorilla with massive commercial self-interest and a history of censorship throwing around its weight. That is, if there is one team I don't want to design this, it's a Google team.
Furthermore, it's not like users or providers don't have plenty of options to choose from already to simplify URLs.
You're missing an essential difference, namely who controls the monetary supply. From Investopedia:
Fiat money is currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but it is not backed by a physical commodity.
Bitcoin is something created by the market, outside of government control. No government can manipulate the supply of Bitcoins.
In addition, some cryptocurrencies are actually gold backed.
US imposed speech restrictions were part of the occupation of a totalitarian, genocidal, conquered nation. Of course they were moral as part of such an occupation. And that occupation lasted 40 years, as it should, it was simply a quiet, benign occupation.
That was the point in Germany. Actual, genuine Nazis didn't disappear from the face of the earth in 1945, many millions of them remained part of German society for decades to come, working in government, schools, universities, police, and business. Americans wanted the next generations of Germans not to grow up immersed in Nazi propaganda, and that was a good decision.
What Germans should do is now free themselves of this legacy of allied occupation. Instead, they are going the other way, with increasingly authoritarian laws and increasing restrictions on individual liberties.
Plattner isn't proposing opposing known lies, an act of free speech, he is proposing censoring known lies.
Opposing known lies is quite effective. Government censorship is incompatible with democracy and leads to its downfall.
It was moral, justifiable, and reasonable for Americans to criminalize speech in Germany after WWII as part of the occupation of Germany. It was part of an attempt to transform a nation of fascists and totalitarian mass murderers into something even remotely resembling a democracy.
It is very different for self-governing post-occupation Germany to adopt new anti-speech legislation Therefore: Given Germany's history, for a German to propose criminalizing speech is a sign of profound historical ignorance and irresponsibility.
(In addition, I'm not defending 1930's to 1950's America either; there were strong authoritarian tendencies in the US at the time.)
Yes, and the Weimar Republic had such laws. Did it help them?
Anti-speech laws were effective and useful as part of America's military occupation of post-WWII Germany, which involved mass surveillance and political interference on German affairs on a massive scale for decades. It is an entirely different matter for a democracy to support such laws as part of a functioning democracy.
A "re-run of the 30's" is what Germany is headed for because Germany is making the same mistakes now as it did back then: Germany's political elites think they can suppress political unrest and anger through laws and authoritarian measures and controlling the media. It failed back then and it is failing now: trying to restrict speech only energizes extreme voices. And in the day of the Internet, widespread encryption, and international connectivity, such censorship won't even reduce undesirable speech.
Plattner isn't proposing to criminalize more hate speech, he is proposing to criminalize "fake new" and propaganda that deviates from government propaganda. Regardless of what you think of the anti-Nazi laws, that is both qualitatively and quantitatively very different.
The fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazi regime shows how futile and counterproductive such approaches are. The Weimar Republic had strong laws regulating speech and the press. Far from shutting down the Nazis, the Nazis made a fight against "fake news" part of their own platform ("We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press."). Given Germany's history, for a German to propose criminalizing speech is a sign of profound historical ignorance and irresponsibility.
And let's not kid ourselves why billionaires and political elites in Europe and the US bristle at social networks and blogs: since Edward Bernays, they have used control over the press to “control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it" (his words). In case you don't know, Bernays is responsible for overcoming the resistance of Americans to enter WWI and for addicting American women to tobacco.
Well, as I was saying, I'm not advocating "private insurance", I'm advocating a free market; you keep mixing up the two. And in a free market the concept of "universal insurance coverage" makes no sense because people will choose a wide variety of different forms of medical care, including "no care". You're starting from premises and assumptions that apply to you but don't apply to a lot of other people.
Economically, the question isn't whether we can cover more people anyway, but rather when Medicare/Medicaid and the rest of the social safety net are going to collapse; they are completely unsustainable. We're going to get a free market in healthcare one way or another.
(And, since you ask, both Germany and Switzerland have private insurance and universal coverage, but neither have a free market in healthcare.)
Sorry, but that's not what the UN's own IPCC report says.
That pretty much describes you. I would add that you're rude and a liar.
Bullshit.
Yes, and they are also astronomically expensive and inefficient.
You just keep lying through your teeth.
Don't worry, the way things are going, the dollar and the Euro are going to follow suit. The days of fiat currencies are numbered, and with it the ability of central banks to manipulate the market for the benefit of the rich and powerful.
And while Bitcoin has too many technical problems to replace it, some cryptography-based medium of exchange will replace it.
Incidentally, number of privately insured people probably has gone down; the main reason the number of covered people has gone up is because of massive Medicare/Medicaid expansion. Calling that an increase in the number of "insured" people is deceptive. Furthermore, it's not clear to what degree even those numbers are accurate, since the Obama administration changed the criteria for counting people just as ACA was being implemented, inflating the numbers. And that increased coverage doesn't seem to have done much good either: age adjusted death rates have gone up after ACA implementation, in particular in states with increased coverage. In fact, studies suggest that putting people on Medicare/Medicaid doesn't make them any healthier. That's the crappy, ineffective system you are defending.
The market did provide insurance, but they chose not to buy it. Most of them chose not to buy it because they were young and healthy and had better things to do with their money.
Correct: there is no alternative form of coverage because the ACA makes such alternative forms of coverage impossible. That is the problem. That's why we shouldrepeal the ACA, let insurance companies offer whatever plans they want to offer, and let people buy whatever plans they want to buy.
I didn't "buy" anything, I speak from experience. I have seen the US healthcare system deteriorate before my eyes since the 1970's, and I have lived in several countries that have done better, both with private insurance and with nationalized healthcare. It's you who is ignorant and gullible and supports making the massively corrupt US healthcare system even more corrupt instead of insisting on reasonable cost controls and supporting the adoption of solutions that we know work.
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear: US healthcare costs started to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's That is, until the late 1970's, the US healthcare system provided excellent care at similar cost to Europe. So your theory that it was the free market that caused health care costs to shoot up so much higher than in Europe is false, because the US certainly did not switch to a free market in the late 1970's.
Single payer means that there is a single payer, in contrast to the multipayer system we have right now. When Democrats and progressives talk about "single payer" they mean "Medicare for all" or a system like it.
Based on what? Your irrational beliefs? People point to the UK and France, but those are single payer systems with nationalized health providers.
Correct, and that is the problem: we have a fully privatized system and the regulations are used as regulations usually are used: for massive cronyism. That's why we either need a free market system or a system like the UK or France. And you have yet to explain why you don't want a system like the UK or France.
Here and here.
Using correlations between state level political choices and poverty to try to make arguments about causation is utterly silly. Try again.
No, you're simply the type not to understand statistics. Let's take the first number: "The economy gained a net 11.6 million jobs." Sounds good, doesn't it? Except that the US population grew by about 20 million people during Obama's presidency, so this is below what was needed simply to keep the labor participation rate the same.
The Medicare budget is $1055 billion and the Medicaid budget is $579 billion. There are 326 million Americans. When you do the math, you get $5000/American.
You're right: I was imprecise. We have a fully privatized system, albeit a corrupt one. What I meant was that our two realistic alternatives are a fully nationalized system (like the UK and France) or a minimally regulated free market system. And a minimally regulated free market system would lower costs so much that even the poorest Americans could afford it.
Rust makes a bunch of choices (static type safety, static memory safety, reference counting, etc.) that have been made again and again before. They may or may not be slightly better than C, but they are not so much better that it's worth the enormous investment to switch over, retool, and retrain. To put it differently, if people are going to switch out of the C/C++ family, it will have to be to something that's substantially better than Rust.
One of the things that I think is absolutely idiotic in Rust is its lack of a real-time garbage collector, instead relying on a mix of static analysis and reference counting.
I just read your bio. You were gifted as a kid, but then seem to have just dropped the ball in your teens. You still have a couple of decades to fulfill your potential; don't waste the time.
You mean proof like "that four digit UID isn't bought"?
JD, that is an excellent summary of your position.
The AMA back then wanted what the AMA wants now: private corporations providing services with government-guaranteed price floors, monopolies, and purchasing mandates. And in Obama, they finally found their crony to give it to them.
Well, you might also be very far to the right; the left and the right become indistinguishable. After all, the extreme right also wanted nationalized healthcare and kept railing against "unchecked rampant capital enterprise".
Really? When did we last have a free market in healthcare? No restrictions on where and how insurers can operate? No tax breaks for health insurance? No limits on the number or location of medical providers? No government prohibitions on medical drugs? We haven't had free market health care in the US for a century.
Furthermore, US healthcare started to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's, just as the effects of the war on poverty and a massive expansion of federal regulations and programs kicked in.
You tell me, because it's you who keeps supporting the idea that a regulated system of public insurance and private providers somehow can be made to work. We have such a system already and it performs very poorly, yet you want more of it.
As I was saying: the two realistic choices are (1) nationalized healthcare with a fully government run healthcare system (like the UK and France) or (2) a fully privatized system (like we haven't had in over a century). What you want instead is doubling down on failed corporate cronyism on a massive scale.